Results 41 - 60 of 64
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: rodent_tamer Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | state vs God | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 181986 | ||
I agree that part of the validity of marriage is when it is publically recognized, but the central core of the covenant vow is when the 2 parties vow to enter into this contract not just with their words, but with their hearts. I'm not referring here to the feeling of love. There have been a plethora of people who did not feel love for one another, but married with the intention to love. That is, they truly entered into a covenant in which they both agreed to uphold. These two friends of mine essentially purposely lied to the state when they promised what they promised. In their hearts, they intentionally defrauded the state, but not God. They both were in agreement that this was a false promise and even told God that they did not mean what they were about to do. They did not believe they were entering into a covenant before God. I realize that according to the state and to the law, they did marry, but before God did they really? If you are going to base a true biblical marriage soley on the recognition of the state, then what do you do with gay marriages that are recognized legally by the state? I am not saying that there is not a crucial legal dimension neccessary for marriage to be valid (i.e public,witnessed declaration), but I am saying that the most fundamental dimension to what makes a marriage valid in the eyes of God is when the two parties truly agree in their hearts that they genuinely intend and promise to hold up this covenant. If they simply mouthed the words, but did not inwardly intend to uphold them how can God recognize it as valid? | ||||||
42 | if God knew how can it be valid? | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182025 | ||
Hi Jeff, How can a legal contract be valid if the people going into that contract INTENTIONALLY lie about the provisions of that contract? If the state was aware the contract was entered under false pretenses, the state would make the contract null and void and the deception would have legal consequences. So to follow your logic, if the state is informed that the people intentionally lied and the state anulls that contract, will then God recognize that contract as valid or as if it never took place? Is God bound to the law of man here in this instance? Or does he say “too bad, you signed on the dotted line, you now have to be married to a person who you falsely vowed to marry” I would agree with your logic if the two parties entered into the contract genuinely and intentionally and it would not matter if they did it without understanding the seriousness of marriage. It would not matter whether it was in a church or on a ship, whether they were christians or satanists, whether they were in love or in an arranged marriage....a marriage vow is a marriage vow and since the institution of marriage is from God, he holds all those who made that vow accountable. The problem in this case is that these people did not make a real spiritual vow to each other or to God and the verbal vow they made to the state was not only a lie, but unfulfilled. According to your thinking these people really married and since they got a legal divorce, they are sinning. By divorcing unjustifiably (since there was no unfaithfulness or dissertion), their divorce is not recognized by God and therefore if they enter into any other relationship, they are committing adultery. Now, let's suppose after all this, the people go to the state and admit to their deception and apart from the legal consequences (fines, jail, deportation),suppose the state then declares that this marriage was never valid and dissolves it as if it never happened, are these people according to God, then absolved and free to marry under God's moral law? I'm not trying to philosophize or find loop holes, I am trying to understand what, according to God, makes a marriage valid. I am trying to use logic to understand what you are claiming. It seems to me that a vow can only be broken if that vow was intended and meant, but if that vow was a KNOWINGLY false vow it makes the vow invalid to begin with even if the state was unaware that it was a false one. God knew it was false and since he is the ultimate determiner only he can decide. Marriage, as scripture emphasizes, is not merely a legal contract, but a spiritual/sacred one. If marriage is a God made contract, not only a legally recognized one and part of the stipulations of that contract requires to intentionally promise certain things on a spiritual plane and false testimony was given and God knew this, how can God accept it as a true vow? I guess my point is how can God accept the falsity of that vow to be true if He knew it was false to begin with? The fact that the state was unaware of the falsity of that vow does not make the vow genuine, it just means that they were deceived. If a marriage covenant is defined by 2 key things: 1). 2 people vowing to each other and to God to love, cherish, be faithful and stay with the other till death parts them. 2.) The 2 people vowing to uphold this covenant publically with witnesses that can testify to this vow. If this is the definition and the first stipulation did not take place and the second one was a false one, I can't help but question the validity of the covenant. |
||||||
43 | Only words count God? | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182039 | ||
Hi Mark, As for Leviticus 27, I do not understand what those passages have to do with this specific issue. I didn't read anything there that had to do with a "foolish vow". It just seems to give a set of instructions as how to make special vows to dedicate persons to the Lord by giving equivalent values. Before I address Matthew 23, let me begin by saying that I think it was wrong for the 2 people to make deceptive vows for personal gain. Well, the man made the deceptive vow for his own personal gain and the woman made a deceptive vow for his personal gain. In either case, it was deception and thus morally wrong, not just illegal. It is common sense to know that the Lord would see deceit as a sin. Before I go any further, please explain to me what kind of vows are being referred to here in Matthew 23? I do not understand what kind of vows were being made. For example: "Woe to you blind guides! You say,if anyone swears by the temple it means nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath." (matt.23:16) What oaths were being made? What is this oath system that the pharisees were regulating? What does the bible mean by "swearing"? Let me see if I'm following you correctly. So what God holds you to is not your thoughts/intentions, but your audible words? Let me draw you a picture: This is what the girl literally did on that day. First before the ceremony was to take place she said this audibly in a prayer to God: "God the words that I am about to make in that room to the mayor (who was performing the ceremony), are not true. I do not vow to marry this man. You know in my heart this is false and though I know that it's wrong to lie, I am doing it with the best of intentions. " During the ceremony when she was asked: "do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" Her mouth said: "I do" and her thoughts finished the sentence with the word "not". Again I do not question the immorality of the deceit, but I am trying to stress to you that her frame of mind was one that was definitively not saying "I do" to God or to the man. They were both complicite in this deception. The way she rationalized the deceit was by believing she was doing this for a greater good (i.e helping the guy not get deported) and she also believed at the time that since it was a civil ceremony and not before God that it would not count as valid in God's eyes. She has since then realized that the deceit in the first place was wrong. I feel that you are understanding this as though she made an impulsive rash decision or that she was thinking "oh maybe I really mean to marry him". It wasn't that she made this vow with the intent to keep it, she went into this vow with the specific intent to NOT keep it. The pharisees said many things with their mouths, but God knew the intent of their hearts. The law, the law, the law. I feel like that is the focus here. The specifications of the law. Whether it was made by the alter or by the gold of the alter. What is more sacred? The signed marriage license which "proves" that vow valid or the inward vow/heart/prayer that truly makes that vow sacred? Her audible vow was in truth a lie, while God would dissaprove of lying, I can't believe that God would hold her bound to that vow and doom her to a life of loneliness. |
||||||
44 | Good point | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182143 | ||
Ebrain, You make a very intersting point. You are right to conclude that one of the parties is not a christian. The girl is a christian and the man is not. I guess the critical question I am asking is did God join them together or did the state join them together? Or more importantly, Does God recognize this joining as binding because the state recognized it as binding? What makes this case different is that both parties were breaking the law by pretending they were really believing and intending to uphold the vow they were taking. They both were not only unwilling in their consciounce to "join" together, but they didn't believe they were joining together. It was an intentionally deceptive vow to the state in order to avoid deportation. If one christian makes a vow to marry a nonbeliever in good conscience (ie willingly and honestly), though it would be in clear violation to God's instructions, I think God would still hold them bound to that "joining" even if God didn't will it. The believer's disobedient act would have tragic consequences----a miserable marriage, an unequal union. Are you saying that all those believers out there who have disobediently married unbelievers aren't really married in the sight of God? In these recent posts, from my understanding, the argument has been made that since God instructs us to obey the governing authorities (Romans 13), the couple was indeed married in God's eyes even though the governing authority was deceived and their own law broken. That is, since man's law recognizes it as a true marriage(a piece of paper was signed), then so does God. My critical question is since man's law was clearly broken, does God still consider that illegal broken law as lawful and therefore binding? The state never found out that the law was broken, but if they did, the sham marriage would never have been recongnized as lawfully binding. So if the sham marriage would have been dissolved would God then be bound to dissolve it as well? I am arguing that since God knew it was a sham, He never joined them to begin with even though the state did so through deception. In other words, God is not subject to man's law, but rather man's law is subject to God's higher law. I do not believe God sanctioned this union since He knew it was not genuine. Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. I should also mention there were additional critical details about this coulple that could help you understand the circumstances better.I will share them on a separate post because there is not enough room here. |
||||||
45 | Is marrying for citizenship real? | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182145 | ||
Here are the details of the case: These 2 people dated before and after the sham state marriage. When they legally married they were dating for about 6 months. The christian girl never would have even considered dating him if she thought he wasn't a christian. Before they dated, they were friends and he knew what her beliefs were. She shared the gospel with him and he claimed to have accepted the message of christ. It turned out that his conversion on his part was false. He knew she wouldn't date a nonbeliever and in order to not lose her, he claimed to have accepted Christ. Throughout the relationship they remained sexually pure. In the beginning of the relationship he went to church with her, prayed with her and was even baptised. I want to make clear that even though they cared for each other and were dating when they both married legally, neither of them believed they were truly married. She only knew him for 6 months and would still need the test of time to know him and know God's will regarding marriage. After 2 years dating him, he proposed and she reluctantly said yes, but something in her heart told her to delay the marriage. At that point, she started to suspect something was wrong because she didn't see the fruits of spiritual growth in him even if his moral outward life wasn't blatantly rebellious. She shrugged off that feeling by telling herself he just needed time to mature as a christian. As a result of her being with this man, the girl's relationship to God began to slowly suffer. She stopped going to church, barely prayed, hardly read the word etc.... She became attached to this man and felt stuck. Towards the end of the relationship, the girl's mother began to pressure them to start the wedding plans since their engagment was so long. The wedding plans were taking place and finally after seeking God's will through prayer, she confronted this man and he admitted to her that he didn't truly believe in God. She realized then that she couldn't marry him, but she still was struggling with fear, attachment and insecurity. One day, she went to church, heard a powerful message about maturity and contentment in God and the holy spirit empowered her to have the courage to do what she felt God was asking her to do. She believed God was telling her, "do not be yoked to an unbeliever......choose me and my will above what you will". The girl broke off the relationship and cancelled the wedding. She reconciled to God and remained single for 4 years until now. The nonbeliever who she broke up with immediately entered into another relationship with another girl who he lives with to this day. At the moment, this christian girl is dating a christian man who clearly shows the fruit of his spiritual closeness to God. In other words, there is no doubt in her mind that he is a christian. As her relationship deepens with this man both spiritually and emotionally, they are both thinking about marriage and that is how this whole issue came up. She asked me to post this question on the forum out of curiousity. She is studying about what makes a marriage valid and things of that nature. When the possibility presented itself that she may have inadvertantly married this man in God's eyes all those years ago, it really did a number on her. She and I are not seeking counsel on this forum , we are trying to understand what scripture teaches regarding what makes a marriage valid in the eyes of God. We are hoping to find some answers that could clarify or put to rest any doubt. The girl has presented this situation to her pastor and is currently awaiting a response. Please keep her in your prayers. Thank you |
||||||
46 | Men had multiple wives in the old test. | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182190 | ||
Personally, while the sanctioning of polygamy does not sit right with me in my gut, I don't see anything in the Old testament that condemns it. The worshipping of idols, breaking the sabbath, dishonoring parents, lying, stealing, coveting, adultery, rape, incest and murder are all clearly condemned in Old testament, but I see nothing that condemns polygamy. In fact, David who was considered a man of God had multiple wives. If polygamy was a sin how can David be seen by God as righteous? The account of Bathsheba is condemned as adultery, not because she was taken as his number whatever wife, but because she was another man's wife. Polygamy was a socially accepted norm in those days, did God just tolerate it and overlook it? It doesn't seem characteristic of God to over look a sin just because it is a cultural norm. I don't understand when and why this shift from polygamy (OT) to monogamy (NT) occured. I'm stumped. | ||||||
47 | Is marrying for citizenship real? | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182252 | ||
I don't know if you followed the entire thread and I think I have failed to express myself correctly. I am not questioning whether justice of the peace marriage is binding to God. I believe it is. I'm not questioning the method, or the spiritual standing of either party. You don't have to be a christian to be married, nor do you have to marry a christian in order to make it binding. My central initial question was did this particular marriage become binding in God's sight even if the 2 people did not perceive themselves as making a consiencious, sincere vow? That legal vow, as far as they were concerned, was "fake" because they only did it so that one of the parties could get their citizenship. What I was questioning was does their perception make a difference to God or does God hold them accountable to that vow even though they didn't mean it? Some have made the argument that since the state is God's agent and the state constituted this vow as valid, then God did as well irregardless of the couple's perceptions and the state being deceived. These are the questions I presented to the forum. I have presented it in 3rd person here because I didn't want to get too personal. I apologize for my dishonesty. The truth is that I am the female that legally married the nonbeliever for the purpose of the attainment of his citizenship. I am a christian and dated this man who claimed to be a christian. Turned out he was pretending so that I would remain with him. He knew I wouldn't date a nonbeliever. About 6 months into the relationship, he was about to lose his job if he didn't produce proof of legal status and asked me to help him in this way, but it was perceived by the 2 of us that this was not a genuine vow on both our parts, it was a vow we were pretending to make so he could get his citizenship. My reasoning at the time was that it was a "technical marriage", but not a spiritual and therefore God recognized one. I thought then and do now that it doesn't matter who "joined us"; whether the state or a pastor, (that is not the significant issue for me). My thinking then was that since neither of us intentionally, conscientiously and sincerely believed ourselves to have actually joined before God, that God therefore didn't join us. As we continued dating after that legal contract was signed we never once believed ourselves to be married but lived as though we were not. Even more so than this, when he later proposed to me, as our relationship progressed, that is when I considered the notion of possibly marrying him. Does that make sense to you? When it came to light that he faked being a Christian, I cancelled the "genuine" wedding that was about to take place 4 yrs after the legal marriage took place. When I made that decision to not marry him genuinely the 2nd time, I felt then and find it difficult now to deny that God was prompting me to do so. I am having difficulty accepting that I imagined all that, but I want to be submissive to that possibility if it is true. Now here is my second question if the argument made is true. If it is true that "A state sanctioned marriage constitutes "What God has joined together" irregardless of what I believed to be doing, how then does God view the legal divorce? Understand that when we separated, we separated with the belief that our break up was not one from marriage, but one from dating. In other words, in our perception, we believed that a marriage never took place though one did according to the state of NJ. Now here is where it gets weird for me. Assuming it is true that our first legal marriage was binding and genuine in the sight of God, then did this man commit adultery in the sight of God when he entered a sexual relationship with this other woman immediately after our mutual break up and cancellation of the second so called "genuine" wedding? It was no secret to me that he became involved with this woman after our break up and I never thought of it as adultery since I never considered us truly married in the first place. As far as I was concerned he was free to date since we no longer were in a relationship or going ahead with our so called "genuine" wedding plans. What literally took place was this: (continued on the next post since there is not enough room here) |
||||||
48 | Is marrying for citizenship real? | Matt 19:5 | rodent_tamer | 182253 | ||
What literally took place was this: He confessed he was not a believer, I determined I could not marry a nonbeliever, he agreed that we should not get married, I begged him to reconsider the truth of the gospel as truth and even offered a possibility of working towards restoration with the help of a christian counselor, but after one visit, his decision was basically: "religion was not for him", we went our separate ways and he immediately became involved with another woman as soon as he knew I was not going through with the "genuine" wedding plans. I remained single for years after the break up and after the legal divorce and about a year after our separation he filed for divorce because he received his citizenship (the citizenship process is a lengthy one). I believe the only justifiable reason for divorce, according to the bible, is adultery and desertion. It would follow that under those 2 reasons a divorced person would then be free to remarry. That is, without those 2 reasons, divorce would be a violation to God's law and remarriage considered adultery. Now with that in mind, if my "legal" marriage to this man was actually sanctioned by God, does that mean my "legal" divorce to this man justifiable or permissible by God, since he technically committed "adultery" unbeknownst to either one of us? Am I then to conclude that in God's eyes, he did commit adultery even though neither one of us understood it as such? In other words, even though I didn't feel betrayed, did he indeed betray me since our legal marriage was a binding one in God's sight? So is it safe to conclude that since our legal marriage was a biblically genuine one, would it follow that our legal divorce was a biblically justifiable one as well irregardless of our perceptions of both? What is my standing with God now? Am I free to remarry in good conscience? I hope I have made my spaghetti explanation solid and sound. I apologize to those who have been following my thread for my initial dishonesty by not stating that it was I who I was referring to. Please pray that God reveals His truth to me regarding this matter. My earnest desire is to live rightly before him. humbly yours, monica |
||||||
49 | Did pre-judaic cultures marry? | Matt 24:38 | rodent_tamer | 181962 | ||
We know that God invented the institution of marriage. Historically, were the jews the first to perform marriages and marry? Were there earlier cultures or cultures outside Judaic influence marrying? Do we have evidence of this? |
||||||
50 | could use your wisdom | Matt 24:38 | rodent_tamer | 182003 | ||
Thanx Doc for your insight regarding my questions. I don't know if you've seen my question regarding my friend who married someone through the justice of the peace in order to help them get their citizenship, but I'd like to know what your opinion is of this. Please note that this person didn't marry the illegal alien because she believed she was really marrying him...ie. it wasn't like this impulse of "hey I love you let's get married" and then realized she made a mistake. She believed she was helping this person and that since it wasn't a marriage in a church before God, that it wasn't ultimately true. She prayed before God and declared to him this was not a genuine oath of marriage. At the time, she didn't think the law of deportation was just and believed she was helping a person in need. Since then, she realizes this was a poor decision because she deceived the state and did something illegal. I've been showing her the responses from this thread and she is freaking out. She never would have done this if she thought God would have recognized it as a real marriage. What is she supposed to do? Try to have a relationship/marriage with this estranged person she helped several years ago? He is not even a christian and both her and this guy are now in separate relationships of their own. She hopes to marry the christian man she is involved with now. Is she committing adultery? Since the illegal alien friend she married falsely would not want to be with her, is she doomed to remain single for the rest of her life? I could really use your wisdom regarding this. She is devastated. Also note that after the guy got his citizenship, they legally divorced. |
||||||
51 | Husband concerned with wife's walk | Luke 6:41 | rodent_tamer | 180581 | ||
Your idea of a strong christian seems to be based on superficiality. While smoking is a bad habit and unhealthy it is no different from a person who drinks coffee everyday. Do you drink coffee everyday? Did you know that C.S. Lewis smoked a pipe? Do you know how much God used Lewis to advance the kingdom? Was his walk a bad one? I think you and your son should not be so concerned about such "appearance" based things and look into your own hearts. Self righteousness, pride and judgmentalness are real sins and certainly more harmful than watching t.v, cursing and smoking. Are you really concerned for her spiritual welfare or more concerned of how she appears to others or how she may badly reflect on you and your son? Be honest with yourself. | ||||||
52 | how can we know children go to heaven? | Acts 16:31 | rodent_tamer | 180595 | ||
(part 2 of my original answer continued.) Since Christ took the blame for our sins and became a sacrifice, the sin that condemns us will not be held against us. We are not held accountable, since, through Christ's sacrifice, we can now attain forgiveness for our sins and the slate washed clean. The penalty of original sin no longer condems us. That is why when you "count the cost" to follow him, you turn away from your former habitual life style of sin and follow his teachings. I don't mean to say that when you decide to follow him you are perfect and never commit a sin again, it just means that when and if you do commit a sin, you have access to God through Christ to ask for forgiveness and be clean before God. By following Christ you leave behind a habitual lifestyle of sin and submit to the Holy spirit who teaches you to live by the "fruits of the spirit". You gain freedom from sins, not only because they are no longer held against you, but because you can repent of them and therefore change. In essence the only difference between a believer and a non-believer, besides acknowledging that Christ died for our sins, is a continual state of repentance. My question to you is: How do YOU know you will have eternal life after you die? I mean, what do you have to do to attain eternal life and gain favor with God? This is not meant to bash the Catholic church, because I don't think there is something wrong with a ceremony that confirms what you truly believe in your heart, but what I'm saying is that a ceremony WITHOUT belief in your heart is meaningless to God and has no real power to bring salvation. I was raised a Catholic and as an infant I was baptized, as a child I did my communion and confirmation. I went to confession and performed all the "Hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" that were requested of me. I never once, through all these rituals, understand what salvation meant. I did not really do them because I understood, believed or disbelieved the gospel. I did them because my mother and authorities told me I had to do them. All I cared about was my toys, my friends, snow days and making sure my brother didn't break my dolls. At around age 18 I heard, understood and said "yes" to the Gospel of Jesus. I was then baptized as an adult. My 2nd baptism was not what brought me eternal life or make me a child of God, it was my believing, trusting and following the message of Christ.The act of baptism was a symbolic outward ceremony that attested to what had occured in me inwardly. Do you ask this question because you are concerned for a child who died without being baptized? |
||||||
53 | how can we know children go to heaven? | Acts 16:31 | rodent_tamer | 180598 | ||
(Part 1 answer to this question) Read this part first and the 2nd part of my answer after. Sorry about confusion. Baptism is an act that symbolically demonstrates that you have repented from your sins, washed of your sins and have been spiritually resurrected with Christ. It is a sort of public ceremony that announces your acceptance of Christ's atonement. Now let's suppose a person hears the gospel,(i.e "The good news of Christ's atonement), and has planned to be babtized the next morning. On his way to this ceremony, he gets hit by a car and dies instantly. Do you think simply because he did not make it to the ceremony of baptism he did not make it to heaven? Of course not. Remember the thief on the cross who believed Jesus was the Messiah and asked for mercy? Jesus told him: "today you will be with me in paradise". He did not say, but first get off the cross and get baptized in order to ensure your entrance. The early church did not baptize children or infants, this ceremony began much later. Only people who understood their acceptance of the gospel were baptized. The idea that an infant who died without being baptized would go to hell is absurd and places the importance on a ritual act rather on what that ritual stands for---it places the very attainment of salvation on a physical ceremony rather than on the cognitive realization (and acceptance) that Jesus is the promised Messiah who came to die for the atonement of your sins and ransomed you from eternal condemnation. An infant or a young child does not understand why he/she is being baptized, so the act by itself does not save or the lack of it does not condemn. Someone on this thread pointed out what Jesus said regarding some children who wanted to come near to him.(This is in one of the gospels.I forget where.) He said: "Do not hinder the little children from coming to me, for theirs is the kingdom of God" I find this verse to be quite comforting to your question. My conclusion: if a child is too young to understand the gospel, he does go to heaven even if he is not baptized. Baptism, the act by itself, does not save. If a child is old enough to understand the gospel and hears the gospel, but rejects it, then I suppose it would be consistant to say he would not go to heaven even if he was baptized. Baptism again is not what determines eternal life. Baptism simply demonstrates your acceptance of the gospel. There are a great many people who have been baptized and do not follow Christ. (and by "Follow", I don't mean the old addage: "living a good life"). Remember, to say you believe Jesus is the Messiah does not mean you follow,love,trust and obey the Messiah. Even the demons acknowledge He is the Messiah and shudder. Salvation comes to those who "trust in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Jesus is the Messiah/Lord". There are several passages throughout the new testament that defines eternal salvation through Jesus. (I'm paraphrasing here.) In sum,we are told that the penalty of sin is physical and spritual death. A sinful state blocks us from communion and eternal life with God. Actual physical death is a consequence of sin...of the fall of man (the disobedience of man to God). We are all sinful, but Jesus came into this world and died in order to pay the death sentence of that penalty in our stead. He took the blame for our sins so that we might not stand condemned but gain entrance into God's kingdom. The reason he did not stay dead, but rather resurrected was because He, being in very essence God, was without sin. Death (the consequence of sin) could not apply to him. For those that believe, He killed Death and erradicated the sins that make us enemies of God. He defeated death and sin by his sacrifice for us and opened up the way to God for us. For those who accept him as this sacrifice will then too not only have spiritual eternal life, but will also be resurrected in our physical bodies at the day of Judgement. It is offered freely to the world, but attained only by those who accept him as atoner and follow/love/trust and surrender to him as saviour |
||||||
54 | Should I separate from a sinning brother | Rom 3:23 | rodent_tamer | 180650 | ||
(part 1 of 2 answer to this question) Hi Pilot, I totally agree with Hank. First of all, when you say "brother" do you mean your sybling? or a brother of the church? I'm assuming your sybling. Also, does he consider himself a Christian? I mean, is he coming to know Christ? If he is wanting to attend your bible studies that is fantastic and should make you excited regardless of his lifestyle. I think his lifestyle is none of your business. It's between Him and God. It is God to judge not you. If he is being drawn to Christ and comes to Christ, God/Holy Spirit will change him and transform his heart. A bible study or a church should be a place to get well, a place of healing, not a place that points out your failures and then excommunicates you because you are not at the same level as more mature Christians. You come as you are. It's like saying at an AA meeting that those of you who are struggling with alcoholism should leave and not to come back until you no longer struggle with alcohol. Do you think Christians have a monlopoly on morality? All that differenciates a believer from a non-believer is a state of repentance. I don't know what your brother is doing that you deem sinful, but if he doesn't know Christ, how can you be judgmental of him for living this lifestyle? I mean, he doesn't know any better. Do you think your "righteousness" or what enables you to live a so called less "sinful" lifestyle is of your own doing? Do you think God loves you more than your brother because you, perhaps, don't curse, have sex or do drugs? Christ teaches us to be kind because he is kind to us...to be merciful and forgiving because He is merciful to us. Jesus sat and ate with prostitutes, tax collectors and "sinners". What did he say to the Pharisees who questioned and condemned him for this? He said: It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:12) When Christ quotes scripture saying: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice", I think he is saying what is more important is showing love, humility and mercy rather than following these "outward" empty acts that represent a clean life. That is to say, what good is all your perfect church attendance, your strength in resisting cursing or premarital sex when in your heart you are judging and looking down your nose at sinners whom Christ died for and loves? This is why Christ so harshly condemned the Pharisees, because they claimed to "see", to be righteous because of their deeds, but all the time in their hearts they did not have the love of God in their hearts. They had no mercy or forgivness for others, only a hypocritical attitude of condemnation. Through out my Christian life I have been so hurt by militant, angry, judgmental "Christians" who saw themselves as very righteous simply because they didn't drink one sip of alcohol, dance or go see "R" rated movies. Outwardly, they looked the part, they never missed Church and passed out tracts diligently, but their hearts were so merciless, condemnatory and full of arrogance. There was no "fragrance" of Christ, no gentleness, no love of God. Thank God for God and other "real" brothers and sisters, because I would have completely rejected Christianity based on the harshness of these so called "godly" holy rollers. |
||||||
55 | Should I separate from a sinning brother | Rom 3:23 | rodent_tamer | 180651 | ||
(part 2 of my original answer) Let me share with you briefly my conversion experience. Several years ago, after a number of experiences I encountered with God outside the assistance of a church, God finally led me me to one day walk into a local church. Now, though I was being drawn to God and Christ, I was still living a habitual lifestyle of "sin" because I didn't yet understand that my lifestyle was sinful. Thank God this church, who was full of converts like me, welcomed me, embraced and showed nothing but love to me. Their focus was not on my lifestyle. Their attitude was not that of judgment. They didn't approach me with this legalistic "holier than thou" attitude and say "well first before you can learn about the teachings of Christ, you first have to check off this list of "to do's and "not to do's", THEN we will teach you." Thank God this was my initial experience. As I came to know and understand what Christ did for me and how he wanted me to live, I began to gradually change. It was the work of the Holy Spirit that set me free from that destructive lifestyle. I didn't change because the church cast me out and thereby "taught me a lesson". If they would have done that, oh my God, that would have been such a violent perpetration against my soul....the harm that action would have caused would be the REAL sin. (Remember, that when Paul instructs the church in Corinth to cast out that man was because that man was claiming to be a believer and did know better. He knew better and was not only commiting this sin (incest), but proud of it in a boastful manner. This is a specific matter that Paul knew about and should not be used as a set formula to apply to every nonchristian who is sinning.) I hope I didn't come across as too harsh or presumptive. I'm not saying that you are a pharisee, I don't know you, but this is a topic that is very close to my heart and I beseech you to be very careful how you handle this matter and seek God's heart as to how your attitude and treatment of your brother should be. Respectfully yours, -M p.s. Out of curiosity, when you say "continues to outwardly sin" what is this or these "outward" sins he is committing? I'm just trying to get a gauge for what kind of behaviour he is exhibiting. Have you talked to him about it? I really hope you don't tell me something like he is smoking cigarettes. lol |
||||||
56 | Requirements of a valid marriage? | Rom 13:1 | rodent_tamer | 182182 | ||
What constitutes marriage? What does scripture constitute as marriage? I've been studying this topic and this is where I've gotten so far. I'd appreciate corrections, comments and input if you so incline. Here are a few examples found in scripture where marriage was deemed valid. The first marriage took place between Adam and Eve. Eve was given to Adam as his wife by God. The 2 became one flesh. No civil law existed at that time; no piece of paper was signed. God married them. The 2 were joined directly by God. Was there a ceremony? Witnesses? Legal papers drawn up? No. I’m not making an argument in favor of marriages without witnesses, or legal paper work, but I’m presenting the examples of marriages found in scripture. For me, my question is who has the authority to sanction a marriage and what does God require to take place for a marriage union to be valid? We know that in some states the law recognizes “common law” marriage as a legal marriage through cohabitation of a said amount of time. It could be argued that marriage thru cohabitation and consummation is consistent with scripture (at least in Old testament) so if the law deems common law marriage as legal marriage does God view it as binding as well? I don’t know. Thus far I have not found examples in scripture that describes what a God sanctioned marriage looked like in terms of a ceremony, legal recognition and as to who should perform or have the authority to perform the ceremony. We do know there were wedding celebrations and I imagine in Jewish tradition there would have been some sort of ceremony involving a rabbi, witnesses or parental authorization required. Marriages, for the most part were arranged by the husband to be and the father of the female. I wonder if she had a choice in that tradition when she became of age. In my recent exploration of this topic I have found in scripture a few examples where marriages came into existence through cohabitation and consummation. In these examples I don’t see a ceremony, festivities, witnesses, a rabbi’s authority presiding, public vows being exchanged or the government’s legal recognition. Here are 3 examples of marriage through cohabitation and consummation found in scripture cited here on the forum. (I forgot who referenced it, but the scripture references are correct) 1. Deut 21:10 A soldier’s procedure to follow in order to marry a captive woman of the conquered enemy. (This passage sort of troubles me because it seems like forced consummation is sanctioned, but I am hoping I am misunderstanding it.) 2. Gen 16:2 indicates how Abram (who was already married to Sarai) took her maid, Haga, to wife. 3. Gen 29:20 is the clearest evidence of them all and is the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah. Jacob worked 7 years for the hand of Rachel, the younger sister. After the wedding celebration, the father sent the older sister Leah to the marriage bed instead because it was their custom to give the older daughter in marriage before the younger. Jacob woke up the next morning to find that he had actually consummated a marriage with Leah, the older sister. After confronting the father, Rachel was sent to him one week later to wife. In this story, there was only one wedding feast which obviously involved Rachel. Therefore the marriage to Leah was due solely to cohabitation and consummation. Under the old covenant, multiple marriages for men were allowed and adultery, from what I gather, seems to be defined as marrying or lying with another man’s wife. (Example: David and Bathsheba) Fornication outside of marriage for both males and females was punishable by death. (Unless the woman was raped against her will) In the New Testament, Paul instructs that a marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Monogamy not polygamy. Thus far all I can find in the New Testament regarding marriage is how believers are to behave to their spouse once married, but I don’t see anything as to what constitutes marriage or rather how God recognizes marriage. We are told not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, but that passage does not convince me that it is specifically referring to marriage, though it is safe to draw the conclusion it would logically apply to marriage. What are your thoughts? If anyone could point me to any biblically sound online sources on this topic, I'd surely appreciate it. |
||||||
57 | Requirements of a valid marriage? | Rom 13:1 | rodent_tamer | 182256 | ||
I agree. I think if the state views common law marriage (cohabitation) as covenant marriage, the governing authorities, in this instance, is not consistant with God's higher moral law and therefore no longer acting as God's agent. Although I'm confused since there are instances in the old testament when cohabitation and consummation constitutes marriage. Am I wrong in my understanding? Monica |
||||||
58 | Wat office did womn hold in early church | Rom 16:1 | rodent_tamer | 180886 | ||
I know there were women deaconesses and teachers in the early church. Were there other offices besides these that women held in the early church? Does anyone know the names of the women who held some sort of leadership role in early church? (teachers, deaconesses etc) Also direct me to the verses please. Thank you, -M |
||||||
59 | Why "servant"? | Rom 16:1 | rodent_tamer | 180901 | ||
So since the word "diakonos" is used together in the context "of the church", are we to conclude that Phoebe was in fact most likely a female deacon? Was this office specific to the Christian church or was it a title used elsewhere in that society? Did this office exist in Jewish tradition? I can't help wondering if the disagreement in translations have more to do with the gender issue rather than the word itself. If she was deaconess then that throws a wrench in the "women should not be leaders or hold office in the church theory". In the greek, is there another word for "servant"? That is, when elsewhere in the bible the word "servant" is translated, is it this same word "diakonos"? For example, in the following verses when "servant" is translated, does the greek read "diakonos" or is it another word?: Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Luke 15:26 "And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Luke 22:26 "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. Luke 22:56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, "This man was with Him too." Verse Info. Notes Context 785 John 2:5 His mother *said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." John 2:9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom, Verse Info. Notes Context 787 John 12:26 "If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him. Verse Info. Notes Context 788 John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." Verse Info. Notes Context 789 Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. |
||||||
60 | Wat office did womn hold in early church | Rom 16:1 | rodent_tamer | 180905 | ||
Dear Doc, Thank you so much for your contribution to this forum. I have learned so much from your sound logic and theological knowledge. What did the office of deacon entail in the early church? I.e what were their responsibilities? Also, do you know if the title of "Deacon" exist only in the Christian church or did it exist in Jewish tradition or perhaps elsewhere in that society? My second question has to do with the word "diakonos" (deacon or servant). Is there a generic word for "servant" other than "diakonos" in the NT? For example when referring to a vocational servant as opposed to a ministerial servant, are there words that differentiate these two positions? In your opinion, because of the context of the phrase: "diakonos" "of the church", is Paul referring to Phoebe as an official Deacon rather than a generic "servant"? -M |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |